The PLANS LitigationAfter seven years to prepare their
case,the trial ended in 30 minutes,
September 2005

"Spiritual science is no religion,
nor will it ever contradict any religion as such. It is another matter
that it can be the tool with which to explain the profoundest wisdom
and
truths and the most earnest and vital secrets of religions and show how
they may be understood."

Media reports of
allegations
of witchcraft at one of the schools (spread by "PLANS Inc.")
encouraged
the Alliance Defense Fund, an evangelical organization, to donate $15,000
to finance the lawsuit.

Although the
operation of the two schools was organized
to in full comply with the U.S. Constitution's Anti-Estabishment
Clause,
PLANS contends that:

"a
primary purpose and primary effect
of said operation [...] is to advance religion, including the religious
doctrines of Anthroposophy".

A number of legal experts
watching PLANS' case have
regarded the legal situation as highly unusual. Edwin Darden, the
senior
staff attorney for the National School Boards Association in U.S. has
commented:

"I
don't know if I've seen anything
like this: school districts being sued for allowing schools to follow a
philosophy that is not overtly religious".

In 1999, 2001 and 2005,
the United States District
Court, Eastern District of California, three times has ruled against
PLANS.

In 1999
the Court found that the two school districts have a secular,
non-religious
purpose for the operation of the two schools using Waldorf methods.
However,
it let the case proceed, to find whether public Waldorf-methods
programs
might have the unintended
consequence of directly
and substantially "advancing
religion" to such an extent
that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

In 2001,
however, the Court dropped the case based on PLANS' failure to bring
sufficient
supporting evidence. A legal precedent set earlier in a similar case in
New York led the Court to conclude that PLANS lacked a basis to claim
taxpayer
standing in the case.

After an appeal
by PLANS, the 9th Circuit Appellate
Court in February 2003
reversed the decision on taxpayer standing by the lower court, allowing
the case to proceed towards trial.

While the ruling
on PLANS' taxpayer standing was
reversed based on the broadness of the allegation in its litigation, in
contrast to the case in New York, the judges did not reverse the 2001
lower
court's ruling that the two school districts, including the two schools
involved using Waldorf methods, have a secular, non-religious purpose
for
their operation.

The board of
PLANS issued a Press Release after
the reversed ruling on taxpayer standing in 2003, stating that "During
the discovery phase of the litigation", PLANS discovered what it
describes
as "internal documents" (The Waldorf Teacher's Survival Guide,
a
book that is
advertised
by Amazon), used by Sacramento City Unified School District
as "training
or instruction in Waldorf teaching methods or Waldorf
curriculum.".

In May 2004,
PLANS filed a motion for summary judgment,
or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, requesting that the Court
rule that anthroposophy is a religion, based on material presented by
PLANS.
But the Court did not accept these arguments, and on 15 November
2004
denied the motion, stating that "triable issues of material fact exist
as to whether anthroposophy is a religion".

The case was
planned to take place as a bifurcated
trial and to first address the issue of whether anthroposophy is a
religion
for purposes of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

If the Court had
determined this to be the case,
it then would have moved on to the question whether the Waldorf
inspired
methodology used by the two schools advances and promotes anthroposophy
-- now viewed as a religion for Establishment Clause purposes -- to
such
an extent, that it violates the U.S. Constitution.

CRITERIA
FOR DEFINING RELIGION FOR ESTABLISHMENT
CLAUSE PURPOSES
The
criteria described by the court
for deciding whether anthroposophy is a religion for Establishment
Clause
purposes can be divided into two sets (Court
order, p. 3/32).

One set refers
to two criteria that are not specific
to religion, as such, but hold for all world views, both religious and
non-religious,

whether anthroposophy
as a world view addresses fundamental
and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters

whether anthroposophy
as a world view is comprehensive
in nature.

These criteria, which
apply to both anthroposophy
and natural science as world views from a philosophical perspective,
are
necessary -- but not sufficient -- to decide whether anthroposophy may
be considered to be a religion for Establishment Clause purposes.

This requires
the fulfillment of another set of
criteria, specific to religions, and the Court must also weigh their
applicability
to anthroposophy. These criteria are:

do the philosophy and
world view indicate "a system
of belief and worship of a superhuman controlling power involving a
code
of ethics and philosophy and requiring obedience thereto." And,

can it “be recognized
by formal and external signs
such as formal services, ceremonial functions, the existence of a
clergy,
structure and organization, efforts at propagation, observance of
holidays
and other similar manifestations associated with traditional religions"

The only expert
witness to be heard on the issue
in the trial was Douglas Sloan, Professor of History and Education
Emeritus
at Teachers College, the graduate school of education of Columbia
University,
and adjunct Professor of Religion and Education at the Union
Theological
Seminary and The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City.

In addition to
his expertise in history, education
and religion, Professor Sloan has been involved with the Anthroposophic
Press, Sunbridge College and the Association of Waldorf Schools in
North
America as director of their boards within the past sixteen years.

In a declaration
to the Court in support of the
defendants (the two public school districts), Professor Sloan argued
that
in every fundamental respect anthroposophy is not a religion and the
Anthroposophical
Society is not a religious organization.

Professor
Sloan's declaration indicates that "PLANS
Inc.", which began its public anti-Waldorf campaign with allegations
that
anthroposophy is a "satanic religion" and that Waldorf-methods schools
practice and teach their pupils "witchcraft", and funded its suit on
the
basis of these allegations (only then to withdraw the allegations
during
depositions for the trial), would have had a hard time proving its case.